31 Responses to That big ol’ ad in the Times-Standard: Mosher and V’s newest claim to fame!

RENT CONTROL DEFINED: Measure V is a rent control initiative backed by a small group of mobilehome park residents who want the government to guarantee them below-market rents for life. This new rent control bureaucracy would be subsidized by all Humboldt County taxpayers.

RENT CONTROL IS UNNECESSARY: Scores of individuals and families from all socioeconomic backgrounds have chosen to live in one of Humboldt County’s many mobilehome parks, where manufactured home prices are much lower than stick-built home prices. Rents in these communities are low, fair and reasonable; averaging less than $435 per month.

RENT CONTROL IS TOO COSTLY: The administrative tax Measure V seeks to impose on residents will not cover the astronomical costs associated with rent control. Rent control programs often result in years of expensive litigation. A jury recently found the City of Carson’s rent control ordinance unconstitutionally applied and ordered taxpayers there to pay a staggering $7.4 million judgment.

RENT CONTROL HARMS THE COMMUNITY: California cities and counties with rent control have spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars administering burdensome rent control bureaucracies. Rent control takes scarce public resources away from law enforcement, fire protection, and other vital local government services.

RENT CONTROL IS UNFAIR: Unlike most government assistance programs, rent control is not based on need, income or any other form of qualification. Under Measure V, mobilehome park residents — regardless of their income or financial means — will automatically be entitled to below-market, taxpayer-subsidized rents for life.

McMAC REJECTED RENT CONTROL: The McKinleyville Municipal Advisory Committee carefully examined rent control and unanimously voted against recommending its adoption by the Board of Supervisors in 2015. Like 447 other municipalities in the state, Humboldt County operates fairly and responsibly without rent control.

Marc, when you’re up against a corrupt rent control campaign that will harm affordable housing in Humboldt County, you have to spend resources to get the truth out to the voters. It’s as simple as that.

So public policy should be based on what a small number of people “want”? Wow. How much of your paycheck or income are you willing to give up to pay for all of these “wants”? Rent control could cost Humboldt County taxpayers millions — plus cuts in vital community services. City of Carson taxpayers are already on the hook for $7.4 million because their politicians adopted a bad rent control ordinance, much like Measure V. Humboldt County voters are smarter — much smarter. They are going to defeat Measure V on November 8th.

Doug, you are the greatest. Thank you for being you. THC, you are also the greatest.

Which Minority to protect? The few or fewer?

“So public policy should be based on what a small number of people “want”?”

What this is all about Mr. Johnson is getting the majority of people to use our government to protect a minority. The only question is which minority. The small number of residents (your characterization, not mine) or the even smaller number of park owners.

We are going to sue your pants off, suckers!

Rent control could cost Humboldt County taxpayers millions — plus cuts in vital community services.

This is where it begins to get a little dark. What exactly are you saying? Isn’t it this …”If we don’t get what we want, smart but ultimately naive voters, we are taking you to court because you chose the wrong minority to protect. After bleeding limited government coffers by defending our spiteful lawsuits, you will have even less money to spend on vital community services.”

Be afraid, and with that fear in mind, do the smart thing.

City of Carson taxpayers are already on the hook for $7.4 million because their politicians adopted a bad rent control ordinance, much like Measure V. Humboldt County voters are smarter — much smarter.

“But the Supreme Court effectively said the city has the authority to enforce its land-use rules despite the property’s owner’s desire for more revenue from his mobile home parks.”

______________________

Things are changing Doug as people begin to understand the true results of Reaganomics where we are all at the mercy and all protect the “free” market at all costs. The end result is that a significant and growing percentage of our population no longer can afford the necessities of life such as … shelter.

This happens to be a fair and well written ballot measure that takes into account the long and challenging history that California mobile home owners (as opposed to the park owners) have undergone from forces with seemingly unlimited money. Humboldt and it’s residents will benefit from the struggles, legal and otherwise, that other Californians have endured and we will get a workable protection for mobile home park residents.

The Times-Standard thinks this is a fair measure so does the League of Women Voters, I understand you don’t think that V is fair or right, but you have to admit your judgement may be influenced by the fact that you are the representative for the Northern California and Bay Area Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association for goodness sake.

Correction. That wasn’t the final say on the Carson City case. A Federal district court case with a judge nominated by a Republican president awarded the park owner $7 million when the top CA court found the reverse.

This is why the Federal judicial system is so important. It’s also why the Republicans are now making history in their obstruction of Democratic-appointed judges. They will of course say the judiciary has nothing to do with politics or agenda, but in cases like this we can see the ramifications the judiciary has in very fundamental policy decisions.

LMOB do you think anyone will build a mobile home park if the measure passes? I am curious. It seems obvious the people pushing this issue aren’t really doing it for anybody but themselves and they have been less than honest. “New residents pay higher rents….” the person I talked to said their rent went up $15.00 a month. That seems reasonable to keep up with things like the CA minimum wage increase, property taxes, and all the bond measures on the tax bills.

I spent pages answering your questions 3 different ways in a recent thread with no response, so excuse me if I don’t spend 2 hours to try to answer what may or may not be a disingenuous question. But here is a question to your question. How many mobile home parks are there in in the tri-city area and when were they built? I don’t think Measure V will not be a consideration if someone is serious about their odd desire to “build” (I think you mean flatten) a mobile home park.

I know we are family, but this enrages me “It seems obvious the people pushing this issue aren’t really doing it for anybody but themselves and they have been less than honest.”
I don’t know Ms. Mosher but I do know Carrie Peyton-Dalbergh and Patti Rose and these are good people and friends. How does this work? How does this “seem obvious”? How exactly in your mind does an email from January clearly used as an October surprise which has launched a thousand full-page ad buy for property owners who have $270,000 and counting spread to other advocates or, for that matter the measure itself?

A measure, btw that has some pretty heavy hitting endorsers, right?

Cousin, don’t be a fool. We can disagree but please don’t let political gamesmanship sully the reputation of good people. Hillary Mosher can, and I hope will, defend herself. Please don’t let the slime spread any further because it is a bullshit political tactic and it takes tonnes of money for people to ignore their conscience on something like this.

And to review, Doug Johnson = good person. What he does to a couple of local people in the process of what is important to him, his family and his friends, and his employer is not a huge concern. And if our lives were reversed, I might be doing the same thing.

But that doesn’t mean I understand a local person doing the same. So let me say it again. Patti and Carrie are friends and they are wonderful people. That is what “seems obvious” to me. I’d like you to come up with any, ANY other evidence to refute that other than you disagree with their politics on measure V and an email that any voter should connect an email to a fairly written rent stabilization ordinance then send an anonymous email to THC. He’ll print it.
___________________________________________
BTW, here is Patti in today’s TS.

‘Please show them what people power can do’

We are the people that live and walk in your neighborhoods. We are the people that stand on the corner and wave our “Save Affordable Housing, Vote yes on V” signs. We are the people that call you to ask for your vote.

We cannot afford robocalls. We cannot afford big billboards. We cannot afford hours of TV time. And we cannot afford the advertising experts who know how to muddy the waters and confuse the issue with half-truths in an attempt to dilute our power.

We are just ordinary people who live in Humboldt and thought that we had figured out how to afford our senior years. We purchased a mobile home because we could afford the lot rent. That was before the Wall Street crash and before the housing boom. Now they have turned their sights on, not middle America, but low income America. Yes they have the money but that isn’t everything. Please show them what people power can do and vote YES on V.

“We are just ordinary people who live in Humboldt and thought that we had figured out how to afford our senior years. We purchased a mobile home because we could afford the lot rent. That was before the Wall Street crash and before the housing boom.”

You don’t address the questions I ask, you take off on some side issue and never get around to directly answering things. For example: I asked if you thought anybody would build a park and your answer is: “I don’t think Measure V will not be a consideration if someone is serious about their odd desire to “build” (I think you mean flatten) a mobile home park.”
WTF does that mean? I could suppose you mean “No”? So what I am saying is the people pushing the issue are only interested in protecting themselves and the current set of renter’s because if nobody ever builds another park they will be the only ones to ever benefit. It will increase the pressure on other low cost options, and that doesn’t seem fair to give a retired dr a break on rent when the burden is passed along to someone who really needs it.

Do you understand how supply and demand works?

I’d like to see the demographics of the people benefiting before we pass a law to screw over people who may really need a hand up.

Cousin Eddie, the corruption and dishonesty in the Measure V campaign goes much deeper then Hilary Mosher’s solicitation of $150,000 to quit all rent control activity. Did you know that the elderly resident they exploit in their campaign videos and ads pays only $408 a month in rent and lives in one of the nicest manufactured home communities in Arcata. And her rent increase this year was just $9. Patti Rose and Carrie Peyton Dahlberg continue to perpetuate the myth — started by Measure V author, Hilary Mosher — that mobilehome park rents are skyrocketing in Humboldt County. Nothing could be further from the truth. $435 is the average rent countywide — that’s a fact. If Patti and Carrie are the “good” and “wonderful” people — LMOB claims them to be — they would have publicly condemned Hilary’s highly unethical behavior and they would have ceased their campaign of misinformation. Voters deserve the truth — unfortunately, Hilary, Patti and Carrie have not given it to them.

Cousin Eddie, below is a post I made earlier to a rent control supporter. Since you are seriously doing your homework on Measure V, I thought you might find it helpful.

Cheers!

Uri, I saw you once at a Arcata City Council meeting — you gave me your card when you were running for county supervisor. Why are you “sticking” with Measure V? Didn’t you read the Arcata Mobilehome Affordability Strategies Study that came out last month? It found that rent control is not only ineffective and costly, but that it actually harms the neediest residents among us. If every voter goes to http://www.nomeasurev.com and reads the independent study in full, they will Vote NO on Measure V.

Rent control never works out in the end for anybody. Just take a look at what a mess was created in places like San Francisco and Berkeley. It will kill the development or expansion of new mobile home parks. And then where the people in need turn to? Increased blight, increased homeless, increased social services and increased taxes on all the voters. This scheme was all concocted by Hillary for her own end. There is no sky rocketing rent problem here.

Not that you care what I think, but you are a good person. You work hard for your family, friends and community like most of us have the privilege of doing. Having said that, I find your local actions here despicable.

I don’t know Hillary Mosher, nor do I know her story, so I can’t defend her. I can and will vouch for Carrie and Patti as a couple of the most impressive people I’ve met. There is an absolute firewall between any corruption between that email that one of your Association’s likely members held onto for 9 months before finally releasing to a local anonymous blog he knew would print it.

You are asking colleagues of Ms. Mosher to “renounce” them and if they don’t, this is proof of there complicity.

“If Patti and Carrie are the “good” and “wonderful” people…they would have publicly condemned Hilary’s highly unethical behavior and they would have ceased their campaign of misinformation.”

Let’s for a moment say that is the standard of “good” people. Why did it take Mr. Kelley of FolletUSA 9 months to make this public? Not only that but he or one of his colleagues did so at the most favorable moment for their agenda. He spend 9 months not “renouncing” Ms. Mosher. In fact, at any time he could have stopped the alleged self-interested requests of Ms. Mosher by simply saying her request was ridiculous and he and his colleagues would be happy to inform the voters that their rents are in fact fair and do not need public regulation.

9 months not renouncing and you are not calling him out? What gives?

But of course people renouncing their friends and colleagues for some paid representative is absurd on it’s face. If the roles were reversed, I’d hope you would be more inclined to forgive rather than renounce, especially if you were to take her side of the story which may not be as clear-cut as you, your employer and FolletUSA are making it out to be.

“Voters deserve the truth.”

Absolutely. On this you and I emphatically agree. The whole truth.

Here is your fact which I’ll take as true “$435 is the average rent countywide — that’s a fact”. What you don’t mention is that certain percentages of these mobile home owners actually OWN their home and have to pay a rent on TOP of that. Or – they have mortgages – but not called mortgages and not subject to the lower rates of mortgages – on those homes because they are in the process of owning a home.

Also, by the time that they finally do pay off the bill for their mobile home and are still subject to the monthly $435 rental fee, if they want to move, like apparently Hillary Mosher did, because of significantly higher rates such as the 26% rental increase mentioned in a previous thread over two years (sorry JW – nice catch) they are fairly stuck, aren’t they? Where are they going to move with the home they now own? How much is the cost of moving an entire home?

Makes for a fairly desperate situation, doesn’t it? Something that one ought to consider in your Hillary Mosher as villain morality-play.
_____________________________________
And one more thing, because you and I both know our audience here at THC. You keep repeating this finding from the City of Arcata’s study.

“The City should work with public and private partners to develop a rental assistance program to aid those in greatest need.”

Do you know what that is? That is a public subsidy program right? That is what means testing actually means. So you are advocating for allowing rents higher than the Bay Area CPI each year along with other exceptions laid out in the Measure. Fair rental stabilization that is need to prevent losing and important source of local affordable housing to purchases of land from highly capitalized corporations.

Here is some more business-truth from the Portland Business Journal May, 2016.

“At least that’s how the multifamily advisory team at Colliers International Portland views the recent sale of Summer Oaks, a 102-home community on nearly 22 acres in Eugene. The community, a garden-style, 55-and-older mobile home park just north of the University of Oregon, sold for $10.4 million. According to a release from Colliers, the price worked out to about $102,000 per pad and a cap rate of 4 percent, which “will set the new high watermark for manufactured home community sales in the Northwest.””

And Christine Kastel wrote better on this than I can in Thursday’s T-S.

“Second, the rental assistance approach (HUD arrangements, which many communities in the county do not have) is a public, tax-based program, which guarantees the economic security of the park owners through public taxes, thus making those same park owners the primary and major recipients of the assistance, not the renters, who may receive benefits. The rental-assistance route would be a win-win situation for the park owners, since they would receive their rent increases no matter what.”

In the end, you are not shy to be advocating for public assistance to help pay for a broken real-estate market which has found a way to commodity the homes we live in.

At some point the people do have the right and responsibility to say – “stop” just “stop”. We cannot commodify all of existence as people who are desperate to find somewhere, anywhere, to invest their money would like us to do.

Does any of that count as truth or is is all mis-information too? And why again should we be trusting you to be the one who answers that question? You still have not informed the good readers of THC in your own words why you are so passionate about this subject. Is it possibly because you are employed by a manufactured-home business association?

Oh boy LMOB. I think the $435 was in reference to the average space rent. Regardless, your whole argument that ends with, “Makes for a fairly desperate situation, doesn’t it?” doesn’t hold water without knowing the other half of the equation: The income. You are under the assumption that everybody in those parks are low income. They aren’t.

“which guarantees the economic security of the park owners through public taxes, thus making those same park owners the primary and major recipients of the assistance, not the renters, who may receive benefits.”

this is plain wacky to me. you guys are saying rental assistance doesn’t benefit the people paying the rent? it is really confusing. if the rent is $400, the owner is going to get $400, regardless of a program. the difference will only be who is living there.

using your bizarre logic above, wouldn’t it be fair to say the primary recipient of assistance is the government itself? the park owners are going to just pay more taxes, after all.

Eddie. Mr. Johnson has one minority in mind, the mobile home park owners. That is it. Everything else is secondary. He doesn’t care how people find affordable housing. He doesn’t mind that FolletUSA would hold onto an email for 9 months to use to try to destroy a person’s reputation. You want to be politically active? You want to take on us owners? Well then you are a child abuser using duct tape to strap kids to schools. And how can you trust the friends of a person like this?

$435 is in reference to an average space rent. His point to the low information reader is that that rent is substantially lower than their rent, so why is there any need for regulation. The whole point is that a MONTHLY $435 is a fraction of that person’s housing costs. They may have completed the other fraction which is the actual OWNERSHIP of their home. These people are not in a free market. If an company is inclined to pay above-market prices for a park (see quote from a business paper in my last comment) and then have their renters pay the cost, there is little the space renters can do other than move. And where will they move to?

if the rent is $400, the owner is going to get $400, regardless of a program.

Measure V is the people through their government saying to private entities, “hold on, this isn’t right.” This land has a function that is a priority over it’s use simply as a capitalization tool. If the owner wants $400 per space, because she just paid excessively for a property which is centrally located and will have much more value as a different type of accommodation, then I think it is right for the people, though their government to say “Hey, wait a minute. Something is wrong with an owner making us pay $40 of that $400 (or whatever then number is) for their intention to change what has functioned for decades as a stock of affordable housing.”

Until there is a place people on a fixed income can live, Cousin.

“You are under the assumption that everybody in those parks are low income. They aren’t.

Cousin, please. Of course there are people who may not need assistance in those parks. I can tell you, as a former Humboldt cab driver that the mobile home parks are well represented as customers. One of the major customers of cabs are those people on fixed income that don’t have the finances to own and maintain their own vehicle. Others may not be able to drive. The mobile home parks are well represented as customers and that is my first hand experience that these villages are principally occupied by those with limited means rather than those that would have a financial choice to live in a “stick or brick house” (wasn’t that the term Doug used).

Are you saying this isn’t true?

“this is plain wacky to me. you guys are saying rental assistance doesn’t benefit the people paying the rent? it is really confusing.”

After our exchange on threads on P, I no longer believe you are truly confused. I don’t think you are doing your homework as Doug has said. I think you know exactly how you would vote and you are framing the argument with insincere questions. But you are very interested in me answering every one of your questions, so here it is.

If the rent for a space on which a mobile home is or would be placed is maintained at a certain level, say allowing Bay-Area CPI- linked rental increases each year, there is a chance we could help to have those on fixed income be self-sufficient. Honestly Cousin, there is no way we can keep Social Security on par with the CPI with Republicans in control of congress so we are still likely to be losing ground in what should be a right in this country – to be able to afford housing without seeking public assistance.

What Doug is arguing for is this. That the solution to the problem of increased rents and unaffordable housing for low income/fixed income individuals should be more government-funded housing assistance to make up for those owners who are buying parks at newly determined high market rates then passing along their costs to the renters. The checks would go through the renters who would otherwise be protected by reasonable annual rent increases and the excess would be paid by the government after an eligibility worker like myself bean-counts all of that person’s income and property and determines if they are eligible to government support.

And what happens to that program over time in a conservative free-market governed county state or nation? You and I know that people like Mr. Johnson and many readers of THC will then be using their dependence on government assistance against these individuals, doing everything they can to stop or reduce these programs in order to reduce their own taxes.

It’s a viscous cycle Cousin. I hope I answered your question.

________________________________

BTW, I’m going to re-post evofearth’s comment that came a few hours before mine on another thread to remind you that most people here are against any government subsidy and that this is exactly what Mr. Johnson is asking you to vote for by voting “no” on V. That is his preferred solution to our counties housing crisis. That to me seems to be a little self-interested which is probably the reason they needed that email to frame their very expensive campaign to protect the market’s right to be taken in consideration before human need in local government.

This center is for families and kids. The proposed hub is not a general relief center or a homeless shelter. It will be a center to consolidate existing and mandated services in the county so you don’t have to travel to Eureka for an appointment! The services include: social services for families and the family resource center. I understand new projects often make people afraid but research shows these services do not increase the numbers of criminals. Supporting families reduces the causes of homelessness and makes our community better. -evofearth on a recent THC thread.

“You want to be politically active? You want to take on us owners? Well then you are a child abuser using duct tape to strap kids to schools.”

well, if i wanted to be politically active, I wouldn’t try to extort my opposition. and i surely wouldn’t try to sell out my friends and neighbors for my benefit. But that’s just me.

“Until there is a place people on a fixed income can live, Cousin.” this is an excellent point, but the problem is it’s a government created problem LMOB. this type of land is only scarce due to the development requirements imposed on any new construction. this is well studied and documented.

take away the impact fees, minimum lot sizes, sidewalks, 40 foot roads. setbacks… all the extra stuff and get back to a warm, safe place to sleep at night and there would be plenty of low income housing.

if you really wanted people to have affordable housing, you’d be on the property rights bandwagon.

If the state or county said for six months or one year; “anybody can do anything, no housing rules, build whatever kind of house or apartment or condo, wherever you want, as long as it meets basic health and safety codes” i bet you’d have the problem solved.

probably see some innovative housing too.

but you’d rather have your community built the way you want it, they way you think is best for everybody and let the poorest among us suffer.

then blame it on republicans when it’s the progressive state of CA and it’s environmental and land use laws that have given us some of the most expensive housing in the nation.

“well, if i wanted to be politically active, I wouldn’t try to extort my opposition. and i surely wouldn’t try to sell out my friends and neighbors for my benefit. But that’s just me. “

I agree with you Eddie. However, I also like giving people the benefit of the doubt. I also believe in forgiveness and understanding are also important if we don’t intend to jail or ostracize even more people in our society.

And let us please not forget the truth of this situation. Ms. Mosher got caught up in a blatant attempt at an October surprise. The powers that be, that was not Ms. Mosher sans her friends and neighbors, let this deal continue. What does that say about them?
If you were Mr. Casey, wouldn’t you have just said “Hillary, this is ridiculous, please think over what you just wrote and call me again if you would like to talk about a deal without leverage based on your political action.”

“it’s a government created problem LMOB. this type of land is only scarce due to the development requirements imposed on any new construction. this is well studied and documented.”

“take away the impact fees, minimum lot sizes, sidewalks, 40 foot roads. setbacks… all the extra stuff and get back to a warm, safe place to sleep at night and there would be plenty of low income housing.

if you really wanted people to have affordable housing, you’d be on the property rights bandwagon.

If the state or county said for six months or one year; “anybody can do anything, no housing rules, build whatever kind of house or apartment or condo, wherever you want, as long as it meets basic health and safety codes” i bet you’d have the problem solved.”

This is basically McKinleyville prior to the past 30 or 40 years isn’t it?

My friend lives in a hand-made apartment above a garage outside in an unincorporated area. Today, you pretty much have to be a licensed contractor to do this.

So I don’t think you are wrong that a building amnesty would be a solid temporary fix to houselessness. But what happens after the amnesty? Wouldn’t be more demand?

And what about if people (I would exchange this word for your “government” above) want to do stuff like…say insure standard building practices that allow for safer, more efficient homes that last longer…what about if we as a society find that we should build anywhere based on who does and who doesn’t own land and what they want to do with that land? What if there is some greater societal good that we will not see immediately, but will come 10 or 50 or 100 years down the line that will make lives more affordable then?

Eddie, of course Measure V, rent stabilization for one very odd and potentially very unfair landlord/renter situation, would be the perfect opportunity for you to want to discuss total building amnesty. It isn’t about affordable housing to you, it’s about building more homes. Why is that Cousin? Do you have a financial stake in a building amnesty?

It’s absolutely fine if you do, but it would be good to know your “blind spots” too in this discussion.

“what about if we as a society find that we should build anywhere based on who does and who doesn’t own land and what they want to do with that land?”

i believe that’s communism? doesn’t seem awesome to me. remind me again, where is that successful?

“it isn’t about affordable housing to you, it’s about building more homes. Why is that Cousin? Do you have a financial stake in a building amnesty?”

not true. it is about affordable housing. building more homes will lead to more affordable housing. you can find many articles tying the cost of housing to regulation and vice-versa.

i do have a stake in a building amnesty, as a matter of fact. the value of my house would probably go down if such a program were enacted. but to me it would be worth it if it helped younger families be able to afford a place of their own.

i believe in supply and demand and i believe the middle class has been cheated out of their opportunities by over zealous regulation, and not just in housing. and it’s not just me! see recent elections.